TB1-18043

TB1-18043

On the totality of the evidence, the panel found Slovakia has operative legal frameworks and measures and accessible remedies; the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection would be inadequate and did not make reasonable and diligent efforts to seek domestic protection; therefore they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and their claims under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA are rejected.

Citation
TB1-18043
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Relative Mother: XXXX XXXX; Relative Brother: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing Concluded — Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Discrimination Against Roma, Domestic Violence, Credibility and Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Discrimination Against Roma Domestic Violence Credibility and Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Relative Mother

XXXX XXXX

Relative Brother

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing Concluded — Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' fear of harm upon return is objectively reasonable
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection exists in the Slovak Republic
  3. 3 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence, the panel found Slovakia has operative legal frameworks and measures and accessible remedies; the claimants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection would be inadequate and did not make reasonable and diligent efforts to seek domestic protection; therefore they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and their claims under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims under section 96 of the IRPA are dismissed
  • Claims under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA are dismissed